MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for securing this very important debate.

Serving as a Member of Parliament is a huge honour and a privilege. It is more than a full-time job—and it should be, because it is a job that is about public service. That should be the only reason that anybody puts themselves forward for election to this place, and it should be the only reason that anybody has the privilege of serving in this place. One hundred per cent of our available time, energy and skill should be focused on serving our constituents—that and absolutely nothing else. It is really very simple: there should be no time available in an MP’s day for doing a second job, still less 16 second jobs. Our constituents’ needs for us to serve and represent them absolutely can fill every moment available, and more.

It is utterly shocking to me that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—and yes, I notified him that I would be naming him in this debate—has apparently raked in £2 million over his past two years of “service” as a Member of Parliament. Just yesterday we heard that he was paid £270,000 for 12 hours of work. It is frankly obscene—

[Jim Shannon]

Immoral.

[Dr Chowns]

And, indeed, immoral that somebody is earning more in a couple of hours than the average person—well, more than the average person; nurses, teachers and others who dedicate their lives to public service—will in a year. It is extraordinary that in this day and age, this is still allowed. I agree with the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) that it is a hangover from centuries past. It is totally inappropriate for a modern Parliament. One hundred per cent of our time and energy should be focused on serving our constituents.

Why is it that this total anachronism endures and that those who do not have the interests of public service at heart are able to waft about doing all sorts of other things that do not contribute to the public interest whatsoever, but are motivated solely by what is simply personal greed? Let us call a spade a spade. If somebody is doing this sort of “work”, for these sorts of sums, there can be only one motivation: personal enrichment and greed. That has no place in a public servant, still less a public servant who has the honour of serving as one of just 650 MPs in this House, the mother of Parliaments. We must stop it.

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Leeds East: we need a full ban on second jobs. Yes, we hope that Members will bring outside experience into Parliament, but let us achieve that by electing a far more diverse range of people, from all walks of life, to have the honour of serving here, and let us take steps in our parties to ensure that we do so. But once we are here, 100% of our time, energy and effort should be focused on serving our constituents. Otherwise, there is a total conflict of interest: are we serving ourselves or serving the public? We must be here to serve the public.

I call on the Minister and the next Prime Minister to finally end this outrageous, obscene anachronism. We must not count on the individual conscience of every Member, given that we can clearly see, unfortunately, that a tiny handful do not share a commitment to public service. Let us ensure that the baseline and benchmark is that nobody has a second job, and that everybody who has the honour of being here is 100% focused on serving our constituents.

Cabinet Office

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I thank the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) for introducing the debate so well. He makes many excellent points, including that we face a wide range of threats to our security and resilience. Clearly, we face threats from hostile actors and not just through conventional means: he talked about cyber-warfare and the threat of disinformation. He briefly touched on the effects of the pandemic on our country. The covid pandemic, which killed nearly a quarter of a million people, was the greatest threat to human health for many decades. Recognising pandemic preparedness as hugely important within the security and resilience framework is key.

Another key threat to our country’s security and resilience, which does not receive nearly enough attention, is climate breakdown. It is not just the environmentalists but the ambulance workers who say that, and the Joint Intelligence and Security Committee’s national security assessment itself says that ecosystem breakdown poses a clear threat to national security. The Committee on Climate Change has pointed out that we are woefully ill-prepared as a country for the effects of climate breakdown.

We urgently need to take more action to avoid causing climate change. Equally, we urgently need to take far more action to recognise the threat to our national security and resilience posed by the effects of climate breakdown. That was brought home to us in hugely clear terms last week, as we faced the second major heatwave of the last month or so. That heatwave led to record call-outs for the ambulance service—even more than under covid.

A couple of weeks ago, I spent time with the London ambulance service, which told me that the May heatwave saw its highest number of ambulance call-outs, even including covid, and that terrible record was exceeded last week. We have to recognise the reality of the effects on human life and livelihoods and the effects on our national security and resilience caused by these issues.

This is not just about the health effects. I spoke to numerous constituents over the weekend about the effects that the appalling temperatures faced by our students are having on schools. Clearly, we need urgently to put in place maximum temperatures for schools and workplaces and take action to ensure that that is followed through.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Member accept that there is a certain irony when the same people who are concerned about climate change and temperatures rising have campaigned for air conditioning to be taken out of buildings because of its energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions? We cannot have it both ways, can we?

[Dr Chowns]

I honestly do not recognise the caricature that the right hon. Gentleman paints. Technology exists to provide both heating and cooling in ecologically friendly ways, and that is absolutely what we need going forward. We need far better building standards so that we build buildings that adapt and are suitable, and we need homes that are fit for the future. That is essential.

The Committee on Climate Change—the Government’s independent adviser—has set out repeatedly that these solutions are available and has set out the things that we need to put forward. The Committee has also set out repeatedly, as have any number of people over any number of years, the fact that the costs of inaction far exceed those of action. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) made that point previously in relation to other security challenges, and it applies with knobs on to tackling the challenge of climate breakdown. Twenty years ago, Professor Nick Stern set out clearly that the costs of inaction far outweigh—many times over—the costs of action to address these risks. After 20 years of our heads collectively being in the sand as a country, we are reaping the whirlwind of that inaction.

I call on the Government and the Cabinet Office to recognise the reality that tackling climate resilience must be a central plank of any strategy to protect national security and resilience. We need a Minister in the Cabinet Office whose responsibility it is to put in place that work and to take a cross-Government approach. This is not a siloed issue and cannot be dealt with in one single Department; it needs a cross-Government approach.

We need a comprehensive strategy to prepare the NHS for new public health challenges. We need to invest in flood protection, because we face not just extreme heat but flooding incidents of increasing frequency and severity. We have all seen what a disastrous effect that has on the economy as well as on lives and livelihoods.

We need to develop a comprehensive extreme heat strategy, a national drought plan and a farmer-led transition to climate-resilient food production. Our farmers are crying out for that support, and they too are on the frontline of the security and resilience challenges that the reality of climate breakdown places on us. We need to strengthen our transport infrastructure, energy infrastructure and water infrastructure. Last week, we heard about nuclear power stations going offline in France. Train companies were saying that nobody should travel unless it was a matter of life and death. Water shortages are becoming more and more frequent. The collective, long-term and strategic approach to tackling climate resilience must be a core plank of national security.

Tackling climate breakdown is not just an environmental issue but a central plank of security and national resilience. The costs of inaction far outweigh the costs of taking action now. Will the Minister commit to putting in place a national strategy? Will there be an individual identified in the Cabinet Office who leads on it? Does she recognise that we must invest now or pay far worse costs later?

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

All I will say is that it is important that we rebuild our industrial infrastructure and make sure that we not only maintain but strengthen our sovereign capabilities, not only for now but with forward-looking tech and investment. The Government are determined to do that.

A foundation of our national security is our ability to assess, mitigate, respond to and recover from the risks that we face, should they manifest. These risks could come from anywhere. They could be natural hazards, as we have all been experiencing over the last few days, or they could be deliberate attacks, disease outbreaks or other civil emergencies.

[Dr Chowns]

The Minister has not mentioned climate change. Climate change is not a natural hazard; it is a human-made major risk.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I agree, and it is important for the hon. Lady to understand that we are integrating climate change risks into our work. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is the leading Department on work on climate adaptation, not mitigation. It is important that lead Departments can focus on the issue at hand, and DEFRA is doing adaptation.

[Dr Chowns]

One of the key points that I tried to get across in my speech is that this has to be a whole-of-Government effort. DEFRA cannot put in place a strategy to adapt the health service to the reality of climate change. It cannot put in place a strategy to adapt our schools, our transport infrastructure or our energy infrastructure to the reality of climate change. Does the Minister not recognise that this has to be a whole-of-Government effort, and that it is not something that DEFRA can hold? That is precisely why we need a Cabinet Office Minister to lead on climate resilience.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

The hon. Lady points out that adaptation is a cross-Government, cross-departmental thing. The way that the UK Government are organised means that Departments that are responsible for school buildings or transport deal with the adaptation issues that crop up in those Departments. I do not disagree with the hon. Lady’s analysis, but while the Cabinet Office does have a co-ordinating role, I do not necessarily think that having a Minister co-ordinating it would make an awful lot of difference.

Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

As I confirmed in my statement, more than 300 individual documents were put before the ISC for its consideration of proposals from the Government for redaction. There were a small number of redaction hearings towards the end of that process, when agreement was sought between the Government and the Committee, and all redactions currently published in the documents have been made with the full agreement of the Committee.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Like many of us here in this Chamber, I have not yet had the time to read the 1,000-plus pages of material released today, but the release shines the light of disinfectant on the political culture of how we treat the victims and survivors of heinous abusers of women and girls, and on the scandal of how Mandelson, despite being matey with the convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, was allowed back into the highest possible office. Does the Minister agree that it is essential that this sorry episode in British political history leads to a fundamental change in political culture, so that the voices of women and girls who survive abuse at the hands of people like Jeffrey Epstein are always listened to and put front and centre?

[Darren Jones]

I certainly agree with the sentiment of the hon. Lady’s question. In relation to the time made available to read the documents, I refer her to the general debate on Wednesday, which she is perfectly able to attend.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Fenton-Glynn, I am glad you have found your feet, because I could hear you shouting earlier. We will not be doing that next week. I call Dr Ellie Chowns.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

The Prime Minister appointed Mandelson in a desperate and doomed attempt to pander to Donald Trump, despite knowing about Mandelson’s friendship with the paedophile Epstein, and his links to foreign states. The Prime Minister resisted vetting, and then took a “dismissive” and extraordinarily incurious attitude to it, compromising national security, and now he has thrown a civil servant under the bus to save his own skin. All this from a Prime Minister who pledged to restore trust and integrity in Government, but who has repeatedly betrayed the trust of voters and let the country down. Does the Prime Minister not recognise that the best thing that he can do to restore trust and integrity is to take true responsibility and resign?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me correct what the hon. Lady said. There was no dismissive attitude to developed vetting. I knew that the post was subject to developed vetting, and it was subject to developed vetting. What did not happen was me being told of the UKSV recommendation. That was a serious error of judgment. Had I been told, the appointment would not have gone ahead.

Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I will reiterate the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) made: I wish I had never heard the name Peter Mandelson. He should not have been appointed. It is right that he was sacked. I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s experience and expertise on the issue, which I admit I do not have.

Yesterday, in my question to the Prime Minister in his statement, I focused on Jeffrey Epstein’s victims, but I briefly mentioned the issue of other parties seeking to gain political capital. Much to the chagrin of the reasonable, quiet people of this country, those parties asked for the Prime Minister’s resignation, yet again causing chaos, to which the Opposition are so addicted, for the governance of this country. [Interruption.] The Opposition grumbled at that, as they are doing now, so I will take this opportunity to clarify.

If we ignore the social media trolls and bots and ignore the self-interest of the billionaire-owned right-wing press, we see that the quiet, reasonable majority of people do not want a change of Prime Minister. As one lifelong Tory said to me yesterday, “I see the Prime Minister is still here. That is a good thing.” They are grateful that this Prime Minister—[Interruption.] I was a teacher; I can out-talk anyone. Those people are grateful that this Prime Minister has not drawn our country into a mad, dangerous conflict that the Opposition would have immediately joined.

People value a stable Government who focus on the matters that they really care about. They want a stabilised economy. They want reform to special education needs and disabilities and support for schools. They want our NHS rebuilt and waiting lists to drop. They want our roads fixed. They want their wages to increase. They want affordable homes. They want their communities to be safe and welcoming, and they want violence against women and girls tackled. People are fed up of politics and of this navel-gazing over process. They are fed up of more politicians politicking and point scoring. They are tired of it, and why?

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Dr Gardner]

I promise I will come to the hon. Member in a minute. I am in the flow. People are tired after 14 years of the previous Government chopping and changing Prime Ministers and Secretaries of State. We had the blonde bumbler and the loopy lettuce. This country was on its knees, its people exhausted. The people do not want more of the same. Despite the Opposition’s constant efforts, we will not let them manufacture more chaos.

[Dr Chowns]

In reference to the point that the hon. Member has just made, is she familiar with the YouGov poll that regularly asks the UK population how well they think Keir Starmer is doing as Prime Minister? Is she aware that the latest data shows that 70% of the UK population think that he is doing badly?

[Dr Gardner]

Polls can generate different answers depending on how the questions are formed. In other polls the Prime Minister is still a lot more popular than certain other Members present in this House.

In reference to the Opposition’s chaos, I will speak up for the civil service and express empathy for Sir Olly Robbins. In the whirl of Prime Ministers and Ministers under the previous Government, among the covid partying and profiteering—for which the Conservatives have never apologised, and for which I will never forgive them—the civil service clearly did its best to stop this country sinking into the mire. In such chaotic conditions, it is no wonder that a culture developed that decisions would be made without fully informing Ministers or Prime Ministers. That was partially because under the Conservatives, civil servants could not be sure who would be the Prime Minister or Minister that month.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Before I begin my remarks on the appointment of Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to the US, I want to stress my profound respect for the victims and survivors of the disgusting child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. I very much hope that they are in the minds of all of us in the Chamber as we have the debate. We should remain mindful that the chain of events that has brought us to this point stems from their bravery in standing up and speaking out to expose Epstein’s crimes.

What is at stake here is the future of the Prime Minister; there are certainly questions about the Prime Minister’s judgment. The Prime Minister’s sole defence appears to be that he just was not told, but it is clear that he did not understand the security vetting process, and actually he did not want to understand it. He did not want to do the security vetting process in the first place. He created a culture of political pressure that overrode that process. Finally, he has thrown a civil servant under the bus for failures that should be placed clearly at his own door.

The Prime Minister did not clearly understand the process. There was a process of UKSV doing the developed vetting and then of the Foreign Office considering that. We have had Sir Olly Robbins giving evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee today, saying that there was a degree of grey area and that the case was borderline. He said that he only had a verbal briefing—he did not even see the piece of paper that made it clear that UKSV felt that Mandelson should not pass developed vetting—and that he decided that mitigations could be put in place in that system. It is clearly a process that the Prime Minister did not understand, despite the fact that at least one hon. Member has said today that this was very clearly notified to him in advance.

The Prime Minister did not even want to do the process. Again, it is clear from Olly Robbins’s testimony that, even before he took up his position, there was a tussle between No. 10 and the Foreign Office about whether to undertake the vetting at all, with No. 10 just wanting to rush through the appointment and the previous permanent secretary having to dig his heels in to insist that the vetting was done. The FCDO was subsequently hassled by No. 10 to get the appointment done before Trump’s inauguration, without any curiosity or caveats about whether the vetting was passed. The Prime Minister asked no questions. He displayed terminal professional incuriosity and wilful ignorance. That is totally unacceptable.

It is clear that no value was placed on the vetting process by No. 10, despite the PM now claiming that he is completely staggered that he was not told about it. Indeed, Olly Robbins today said that No. 10 had a “dismissive attitude” towards the vetting, putting in place a culture that established

“a very, very strong expectation”

that vetting would be passed. There was no culture of paying attention to due process; there was simply a culture of getting a political appointee in post as quickly as possible with minimal scrutiny.

That did not apply just to Mandelson, either. Again, as we heard today from Olly Robbins, it applied to Matthew Doyle, with a request coming from No. 10 to put him into a position without even informing the Foreign Secretary. Now, the PM has a temper tantrum and sacks the civil servant because he is furious about that. The country is furious with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has previously said that he takes responsibility for mistakes made in his team, but there is no accountability on show today. There is no responsibility taken by the Prime Minister. This is just one of numerous errors of judgment by the Prime Minister. He should resign.

Security Vetting

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have accepted that that was my decision and I have apologised for it.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

The Prime Minister says it is “staggering” and “unforgiveable” that he was not told about the vetting, but what is really staggering and unforgiveable is that he appointed Peter Mandelson before the vetting—that he appointed Peter Mandelson knowing about his friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. What is unforgiveable is that the Prime Minister was more concerned with pandering to Donald Trump than with standing with the victims and survivors. The Prime Minister has not accepted a simple “sorry” from his civil servant—he thinks that is inadequate. The country thinks that a simple “sorry” is inadequate from him. Will he take personal responsibility for his staggering and unforgiveable errors of judgment—and resign?

[The Prime Minister]

I have set out to the House the facts of what happened in this particular case. I am staggered and I find it unbelievable that I was not given the information I should have been given.

Middle East

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

That is precisely why we are working with other countries to de-escalate the situation and get the strait of Hormuz open. As I said in my statement, that will not be easy, but notwithstanding that challenge, we will continue to do that work.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

In the Prime Minister’s 17-page statement, there was not one word of condemnation for the actions of the US, despite the fact that it started this illegal war. Last week, Trump threatened to wipe out an entire civilisation. The Prime Minister rightly condemned the horrific Israeli attacks on Lebanon, but we all know that the war criminal Netanyahu just ignores what we say, because there are no consequences. Will the Prime Minister take action, put sanctions on Netanyahu and withdraw all permission for the US to use UK bases and UK airspace, to make clear that we will not be an accomplice to the rogue actions of Donald Trump, which endanger us all?

[The Prime Minister]

The US is using the bases to attack the Iranian capability to fire missiles into the region, including at our citizens and our nationals. Members will have seen the images—going into hotels and the bases where our military are based. Is the hon. Lady seriously suggesting that we should reduce protection for our people in the region and expose them to attacks that they would not otherwise be exposed to? That, to me, would be a dereliction of duty, and I will never do that.

Middle East

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are very concerned about the wider impact. That is why it is important that we continue to argue for de-escalation and a return ultimately to negotiation.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

My party and I stand with all the brave Iranians who condemn the vile regime in Iran. We also condemn the deeply irresponsible and illegal attack by the US and Israel on Iran, which was launched in the middle of nuclear negotiations and led by Trump—a clearly unstable loose cannon—and Netanyahu, a war criminal. The UK must stand unequivocally against this reckless action. Will the Prime Minister publish the legal advice that he received on the initial American and Israeli strikes, not just the more recent advice on the defensive posture? Will he also commit to a vote in this House on any UK involvement in this war?

[The Prime Minister]

We are not at war, and we are not getting involved in offensive action that the US and Israel are taking. We have published a summary of the legal advice in relation to the decision that we took last night. That is in accordance with practice. It is not practice to publish legal advice or summaries in relation to defensive action.

Russian Influence on UK Politics and Democracy

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I have notified another Member of the House, whom I intend to name in my speech.

I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for introducing the debate so comprehensively and effectively on behalf of the Petitions Committee and the more than 115,000 petitioners. I share their concern about the influence of Russia over British politics. We urgently need to defend UK democracy from a sustained pattern of attempted foreign interference.

In June last year, the Government’s strategic defence review called Russia

“an immediate and pressing threat”.

It absolutely is. We see that in the conviction of Nathan Gill, Reform’s former leader in Wales. He was sentenced to jail for 10 and a half years for accepting Russian bribes for influence in politics. We also see it highlighted by the light of disinfectant that has been provided by the partial release of the Epstein files. They show a sinister web of crypto and far-right politics in Putin’s orbit, and the way in which that extends into UK politics. It is clear that Reform UK is peddling the same agenda in the UK and is seeking to form the next Government. This is a clear and present danger to UK politics. We cannot overstate the threat to our values, democracy and way of life.

The Gill conviction came more than five years after the 2020 Russia report from the Intelligence and Security Committee, which called Russian influence in the UK “the new normal”. The US had the in-depth Mueller inquiry into interference in their 2016 elections straight after. It is an unforgivable gap in the British state’s response to the Russian threat that a similar inquiry still has not been undertaken into the Brexit referendum. The Tories stopped that happening here. Why have the Labour Government not made it happen?

Mueller found that Russia had sophisticated techniques in setting up legitimate-looking English language accounts, which distributed thousands of pro-Brexit messages in 2016, raising serious questions about Russian internet troll farms. The ISC found credible evidence of interference in UK elections. Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson used to dance on the head of a pin over successful and unsuccessful Russian interference, but this needs to be investigated properly and urgently before we have another general election in the UK. The Rycroft review is welcome and important, but we also need a proper, in-depth, Mueller-style probe into what happened in 2016 and since. Time is short, the clock is ticking and our democracy is under constant threat.

I turn to the Epstein files. The girls and women affected by the heinous crimes committed by Epstein and his cronies are at the forefront of all our minds. Justice for them must be paramount in any action that the UK Government take. The Epstein files make it clear that Gill was not one bad apple, but part of something much bigger and darker: a web of pro-crypto, far-right, Russia-linked anti-democratic forces. It is an oblique and shady movement, in which the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) appears to be embroiled deeply. A message from Steve Bannon, former head of the Trump campaign and former White House chief of staff, was explicit in telling Epstein:

“I am now adviser to Front; salvini/the league; afd; Swiss peoples; orban; land; farage”.

He crowed:

“next may is European Parliament election—we can go from 92 seats to 200—shut down any crypto legislation or anything else we want”.

He was explicit about his project and about the part of the hon. Member for Clacton within that project. We need to recognise this threat.

We see far-right parties across Europe all using the same playbook: attack migrants, distract, create fear, benefit from crypto and grab power. It is dangerous, disgusting and part of a plan. The files reveal Epstein messaging Palantir chief Peter Thiel to say of the chaos caused by the referendum that Brexit is “just the beginning”. That is why the Mueller-style probe is so important. Palantir itself is now enmeshed in hundreds of millions of pounds of public contracts in the UK, including in the NHS and the Ministry of Defence, facilitated in part by Peter Mandelson and Global Counsel. This is absolutely unacceptable.

It is vital that we stand up for democracy. It is vital that we stand up against the dangerous idea, “Oh, they’re all the same,” the idea that the word “politician “is inherently bad, and the unfair idea that all MPs are on the make. Some clearly are, but I absolutely believe that the majority are not. That sort of narrative exactly serves the anti-democratic Bannon-Putin-Farage agenda. But to stand against that, we must act.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

War may not be declared as before and warfare may not be defined by the weapons of old—we may not, for instance, have Russian bombers over the skies of London—but does the hon. Member agree that this country is being forced to fight back against Russian disinformation, spying and sabotage every day? If she does, does she not see Russian financial interference in our democracy as a weapon of war? And if it is, is our country therefore in a form of warfare with Russia?

[Dr Chowns]

I absolutely agree that Russian money is used in all sorts of manners to undermine our democracy. Rather than splitting hairs over the meaning of war, I will say that it is clear that we are in a fight for the life of our democracy, and that is why I am so passionate about the need for us to work collectively, cross-party, to face the challenge and resist the use of misinformation and disinformation, and the misuse of money, to poison our politics.

Let me turn to the actions that we need to take. We have a crucial opportunity coming up, because we are expecting the publication of the elections Bill. This House will have an opportunity to make law that could strengthen our powers to counter the forces of dirty money, misinformation and disinformation that undermine trust in our politics. Will the Government use the forthcoming Bill as an opportunity to introduce the measures that are urgently needed to prevent Russian influence?

Will the Minister ensure that we ban all crypto donations to political individuals and parties? Will he urgently introduce a cap on political donations? It is, frankly, mind-blowing that we still do not have one. Will he introduce annual spending limits, to stop massive spending around the edges of election times?

Will the Minister stop MPs having any second jobs? We have the grotesque spectacle of Reform MPs, for example, raking in hundreds of thousands fronting things like GB News, clearly peddling the kinds of messages and propaganda that serve the interests of the crypto/far-right/Kremlin axis. Will he act on the recommendations of Gordon Brown by establishing a new anti-corruption commission with power to seize assets and introducing confirmation hearings for top jobs? Why have we had to wait so long for this?

Will the Minister ensure that there is meaningful enforcement when the rules are broken? Frankly, £20,000 fines are a joke. We need much stronger financial and criminal penalties. We have structural weaknesses in election law, which the hon. Member for South Norfolk referred to, including the vulnerability of the Electoral Commission to political attack. Will the Minister re-establish the complete independence of the Electoral Commission and ensure that it has stronger powers?

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member also agree that there is a gap in the information that politicians and those who fund us need to supply? It cannot be acceptable for any Member, or any political leader in the UK, to forget that they met the Russian ambassador, to forget that they met someone who later turned out to be a Russian spy—as did the Reform leader in Wales—or to seem to have forgotten who paid for their house in Clacton.

[Dr Chowns]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point with which I agree entirely.

Finally, in respect of the elections Bill, we need to face the fact that the threats to public trust in our democracy not only derive from the influence of Russia and dark money, misinformation and disinformation, but relate to structural weaknesses in the way we do politics in this country. There is an urgent need for electoral reform. We need a system in which every person’s vote counts equally. Will the Minister commit to setting up a national commission on electoral reform so that we can ensure a genuinely fair voting system in which every voice is heard, and so that we do not have the spectacle of foreign money, from Russia or other influences, drowning out the voices of real individual citizens in this country?

If we want future elections to be free and fair, and if we want proper democratic mechanisms for control of our own destiny as a country, we need to know what attacks were made in 2016. We need to understand the mechanisms that have been used to undermine our democracy so far, so that we can protect ourselves from the continuing disinformation campaign that endangers our democracy now. We urgently need to put in place steps through the elections Bill to rebuild trust in UK democracy and protect ourselves from foreign interference.

Lord Mandelson

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Of course, the thoughts of everyone in this House are with the victims and survivors of Epstein’s appalling, horrific abuse, but the motion we are discussing focuses on something very particular: not just what is known now or what has been revealed in the past few days—conduct for which Peter Mandelson needs to face the toughest consequences—but what was known at the time of his appointment to the hugely important role of this country’s ambassador to the United States of America.

In 2023, the Financial Times reported that:

“in June 2009, when he was the UK business secretary, Mandelson stayed at Epstein’s lavish townhouse in Manhattan, while the financier was in prison for soliciting prostitution from a minor.”

That was 18 months before the Prime Minister decided to appoint Peter Mandelson to the role. At Prime Minister’s questions today, the Prime Minister said that he knew before appointing Peter Mandelson that he had maintained a relationship with Epstein. People not just in this Chamber but outside it are asking how on earth, given what was known and what has been admitted was known, did Peter Mandelson end up being appointed by the Prime Minister as ambassador to the United States of America.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it appears that the Prime Minister turned a blind eye to what was already known about Peter Mandelson’s association with the appalling sex offender Jeffrey Epstein because, effectively, he wanted to cosy up to Donald Trump? Does he not agree that it looks very much like the wording of the Government’s amendment—

“except papers prejudicial to…international relations”

—effectively says that the Government do not want to release anything that might affect the Prime Minister’s ability to cosy up to Donald Trump? Does he therefore agree that the Government must withdraw their amendment to the motion? Furthermore, does he agree that we need to do more than just deal with this; we also need to address the lack of public trust in politics and in this House? To do so, we need to deal with things like political donations, the pollution of misinformation, and the urgent need for reform of the other place and, indeed, of electoral mechanisms in this Chamber?

[Richard Burgon]

I agree with the hon. Member. If the Government are foolish enough to push their amendment, which I do not think they will, I will of course vote against it because it would operate to stop us getting the full and complete truth about this matter. I will come on to some other points and make some progress, as I know that other colleagues want to speak.

The public are asking how on earth Peter Mandelson ended up being appointed by the Prime Minister to the role of ambassador to the United States of America, given what was known and what was in the public domain, and given that the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box today that he did know.

Something that must come into this—and it is not a distraction—is political culture. By that, I mean the political culture that has developed within the Labour party. That might seem tangential, but how have we ended up in a situation where a nasty factionalism has operated to such an extent that the Prime Minister and his advisers have promoted and protected Peter Mandelson when so many honest, decent Labour people around the country have been unreasonably punished and prevented from standing for office? We have all heard of Labour councillors who were not allowed to stand for council, perhaps because they had liked a tweet from a member of the Green party or some such. We all saw how Andy Burnham was prevented from even standing for Parliament, and that was pushed by the Prime Minister. Yet at the same time, Peter Mandelson was promoted.

Ways were found round other people standing for fairly minor positions, but a way was found by the Prime Minister and his advisers to push Peter Mandelson over the line and into the office of ambassador to the USA. The reason for that, or one of the reasons, is quite simple: a nasty political factionalism. The reason that Peter Mandelson is looked upon so favourably by the Prime Minister and the people around him is that he made his name kicking the left of the Labour party, and boasting about it. I believe that, at the very least, that clouded their judgment, and it meant that they could find ways around what was in the public domain—find excuses to push him over the line.

When this matter was discussed some months ago in the Chamber, I asked how Lord Mandelson could retain the Labour Whip, given what was known, while hon. Friends were suspended for voting to add the scrapping of the two-child benefit cap to the Government’s programme in the King’s Speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ward]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. The police investigation will go wherever it needs to go. It will cover any criminality or allegations thereof. That is the right way to do it, and nothing will be hidden.

[Dr Chowns]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Ward]

I am going to make some progress, because time is pushing on. I will give way in a second.

Let me come to the manuscript amendment. We will agree with the ISC how it is going to work with us and provide scrutiny, and I welcome the commitment made earlier. As the Paymaster General set out, the process for deciding what falls in scope will be led by the Cabinet Secretary and supported by Cabinet Office lawyers working with the ISC. The Cabinet Secretary will take independent advice on the decision he has taken, and it will take two forms—first, through independent KCs, and secondly, through scrutiny of the approach he is taking, working hand in hand with the ISC. The Cabinet Secretary will write to the ISC to set out that process. He will meet members of the Committee regularly to ensure that they are content with it. In line with the manuscript amendment, papers that are determined to be prejudicial to national security or international relations will be referred to the ISC, which is independent, rigorous and highly respected. The ISC will then decide what to do with the material that it is sent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ward]

I am not going to give way any more. There are four or five minutes to go. I will make some progress, if that is okay.

As the Prime Minister mentioned today, there will have to be discussions with the Metropolitan police over material. The Metropolitan police has issued a statement today on material that will be released. I confirm to the House that material will not be released today, because of the conversation with the Metropolitan police, but it will be released as quickly as possible, in line with the process set out before the House.

[Dr Chowns]

The Minister has set out the difference between national security matters and issues which may be embarrassing to the Government—let’s face it, practically anything could damage international relations with Donald Trump; who knows what he is going to take offence at—but the process he has just outlined implies that the Cabinet Secretary will scrutinise every bit of information before deciding whether it gets released or whether it gets to the ISC. How long will that take? Will he give us an assurance on the volume of material he anticipates sending to the ISC and the timetable? What will be the deadline for releasing that material, either into the public domain or to the ISC?

[Chris Ward]

As I say, the timeline will be as soon as possible. We want to get on with this. There is a lot of material to go through. We will get to this as quickly as possible. Other Humble Addresses have taken a number of weeks or months. We want to be as quick as possible and we will work with the ISC as soon as we can to get it progressing. I hope the hon. Lady welcomes the spirit with which we take that on.